That is a very interesting point, and well probably very true.

Mossad at my house. You're such a fool. I live in US just fyi. I'm not muslim nor am I brown. And no, that wasn't a theat, just a reality of the fact your crusade will not survive. You may not live to see it, but it's true.

exactly, any educated person that knows their facts and the reality that the only solution to defeat islamic terrorism is push them out is really the only solution

palestinian is not good even if he's 6ft under!

make a parking lot from gaza, get putin there for a week:thumbsup

400 years is a little while ? It's you that are twissting the facts here... you're basicly saying native americans have full right over the usa territory...

Ruh roh...

The Zionists should have thought of that before they created a homeland where a bunch of other people were already living.

They have absolutely no right to complain.

Moses was Jewish. :2 cents:

i like how racists use the u.n. when they like it but ignore it when they dont.

heres jus a few un resolutions , most of which have been ignored , infact israel has ignored more u.n. resolutions than any other country


Resolution 111: " ... 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
Resolution 127: " ... 'recommends' Israel suspends its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " ... 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " ... determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " ... 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " ... 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
Resolution 248: " ... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: " ... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: " ... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: " ... 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " ... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " ... 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " ... 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " ... 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " ... 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " ... 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 298: " ... 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: " ... 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " ... 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " ... 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " ... 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 347: " ... 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425 (1978): " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was completed as of 16 June 2000.
Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
Resolution 427: " ... 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon".
Resolution 444: " ... 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " ... 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " ... 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " ... 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " ... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " ... 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478 (20 August 1980): 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'.
Resolution 484: " ... 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".

This shows progress. Almost there, just a little longer.

http://i.current.com/images/asset/89...oK_400x300.jpg

i remember someone else saying that

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~lcall/taylor_map.jpg

Israel seems to be winning though. That guy lost, and lost big.

Allright!!! we beat the arabs...thanks for letting us know that

maybe theres a lesson there , at one point he thought he was winning too. It wasnt until other countries decided enough was enough and stepped in to help, when the usa stopped helping them and us banks stopped funding them. gee sounds eerily familiar:Oh crap

Im scared...:( Please dont...

Amazing research. This shouldn't get buried at the end of page 1.

Who takes orders from who?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...l-1334259.html
"Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert boasted that he in effect instructed George Bush not to vote for the UN resolution on a Gaza ceasefire"

What's the solution then? I gather from people that Israel should not have responded to terror with an armed force. Ok so tell me what they should have done.

[Quote:
Originally Posted by PussyMan
A good palestinian is a dead palestinian...]

THE AVERAGE FLY ON A PILE OF SHIT HAS MORE INTELLIGENCE THEN EITHER OF YOU TWO FUCK UPS:2 cents:

Dialogue?

• THe IRA had been terrorising Britain for over 60 years, that dialogue brought to an end.
• ETA terrorised Spain for more than 30 years, that dialogue brought to an end
• The PLO's camapign in Israel ended in the late 80s or early 90s, don't know exactly when, in favour of negotiation (note Hamas, splintered off from this)
• Sri Lanka's National Liberation Front (JVP) ended 40 years of conflict in favour of dialogue, and ended up winning an election.

THE AVERAGE FLY ON A PILE OF SHIT HAS MORE INTELLIGENCE THEN EITHER OF YOU TWO FUCK UPS:2 cents:[/QUOTE]

Oh, you made baby Jesus cry, bad bad bad...

You probably one of those whit WASP asses.
And just for your information if Mossad wanted to get at you you could be in the United States or anywhere else in the world they will get you like those guys in the 1972 Olympic terrorist who thought they can hide in Arab countries.
And since you are in the United States as well let me ask you this, what do you call the US actions in Afghanistan or Iraq ? Is that a crusade that will not survive or is this justified because the taliban helped train people to hijack planes which caused terror on US land resulting in the death of many Americans ?

The fly probably eats better too. :1orglaugh

Didn't Barak try talking with Arafat? What did that lead to? Arafat walking out of negotiations and starting an intifada.

You're talking about the failed camp david summit right?

Then have a look at Robert Malley's POV on that... he wrote a lengthy bit of insightful comments in the NYT after that, blaming all 3 parties on the failure (Arafat, Barak and Clinton) and not just Arafta as was reported by the mainstream press.

Now, what's very interesting is even though Malley has been reported as an anti-Israel, Hama-loving person, Obama appointed him as a principal foreigh policy advisor.

So, as someone pointed out in this threat, Israel's unilateral ceasefire and Obama's taking the presidency could well not be mere coincidence...

NO SHIT, Pun not intended:)

That's been a great loss for sure!

I don't care who's fault it is for a fail agreement. There is no justification to pick up arms at that point. They could have continued talking. They could have come back to the table in a month, two months, etc. Israel had made the best offer the Palestinians had ever seen. What was the response? Violence.

And now you say Israel should respond to the violence with talks. :helpme

Which was still a piss take.

Buzzy I understand that you and your Hamas brethren would never accept any peace deal that does not include Arab control of Tel Aviv and Haifa but surely you don't expect the Jews to just throw themselves into the sea?

Regardless of historical claims Israel cannot realistically be expected to surrender its right to exist no matter how many supporters Hamas has in the UN and the EU. Even if the whole world hates the Jews you cannot expect us to commit suicide. Why would we ever deny our own right to exist?

Maybe it was a good offer, but why does that mean they have to take it? "It's the best offer you'll get. Take it or leave it."

Well frikken hell, Jerusalem being a big contender, why not give the east side including their mosque? *This* was the one of the major reasons for failure - Israel would not budge on Jerusalem. Why not?

and then there's the refugees.... why refuse their return?

I don't recollect any reason's for not giving either....

It's all fine and dandy to say that you are offering an olive branch, but what happens when you don't have an ear on the ground and you accept it?

Who said they had to take it or leave it? There was years of peace and joint security patrols conducted by the Israelis and PA. This all ended when Arafat thought he could get more with fighting then negotiations. Arafat didn't have to take it or leave it. He could have come back with a counter offer. He could have asked to meet again. Arafat was never interested in peace. He backed Saddam Hussein in the first gulf war while scuds were flying into Tel Aviv. When Saddam lost and no other Arab country wanted to support Arafat because they hated Saddam the PLO was dead. The only way to revive it was with the support of the international community. So he turned to "peace". Arafat played us all.

This is a major contention for Israel too. How can they turn over holy site of their two temples? Barak had a clever idea to make it an international zone. Maybe it wasn't a good idea, who knows. But Palestinians are no where near getting it now.

First off refugees normally are defined as people who flee land not the descendants of those who fled. Meaning if you claim refugee status and move to the US or Canada your children are not considered refugees. There is only one exception to this rule by the UN. You guested it, Palestinians. All descendants of Palestinian refugees are considered refugees. The cards are stacked against Israel so that this problem never ends. If Israel grants all the refugees right of return within one generation there will be no Jewish homeland. Basically you are calling for the death of Israel by giving right of return to Arabs.

Hamas dosen't run the west bank. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

nice try :1orglaugh

Jews have alot of options. Pay for the land they are on, allow the arabs to return to live with them, they can return to Russia and Georgia, they can set up their own state in Alaska.

But you chose to live where people hate you.

Smart. :1orglaugh

Ahah - I wondered if it would bite. Herein lies the problem. Sign your own death, even if it is the logical rational choice. You know, the term 'refugees' was chosen for a very good reason.

Arafat had his major flaws and his very good points too. Like most leaders.

However, he's dead, and you came into this starkly against my statement about negotiation being a way to solve this problem. So, negotiation is now off the table and violence is the only solution, because of stuff a dead man did? Because if so, you simply favour the 'parking lot' creation ignorantly suggested by someone else in this thread :2 cents:

I don't recall claiming they did.

Surely even you understand that none of these are realistic options. The Jews will do like every other group when threatened with destruction and that is fight for survival. None of your ridiculous propaganda or juvenile retorts will change that simple fact. It is the Arabs who will have to learn to adjust to the situation. Israel is not going anywhere.

Accepting the so called "right of return" for millions of Palestinians will never happen as it would mean the death of Israel. Surely no one realistically expects Israel to agree to a solution which destroys itself. Until the Arabs and their friends in the UN and EU learn to be reasonable there will be no possibility for a negotiated settlement.

Usually negotiation is off the table when under fire. A cease fire was suppose to restore calm. That didn't happen. Israel took up arms. No one faults anyone for taking up arms against Israel. Only when Israel retaliates. Why is that?

Because Israel is occupying their land, you have the right to resist when being occupied.

EXACTLY.

What if Mexican drug lords started tossing missiles from TJ into San Diego? You bet your ass we've invade. Sorry Charlie, tossing up unguided missiles into another country is an act of war, plain and simple.

That's not to say that the Palestinians don't have rights; They do.